The 23 Scholars who have signed a Statement in support of the four cardinals and the Dubbia like the present magisterium have made a major philosophical mistake.They include Dr.Joseph Shaw a professor of philosophy.

Like the four cardinals the Catholic scholars have overlooked an error which would be obvious to a school boy or a non Catholic who is not educated.

As I mentioned in a previous blog post the following four errors are made by the present magisterium.

They are also made by the four cardinals and the 23 scholars who support them.

1.From the philosophical point of view a catechumen who desires to receive the baptism of water but dies before he can receive it, is a hypothetical case for us?

My answer is YES.It is a hypothetical case.

The scholars and the cardinals infer that it is not a hypothetical case, for them.It is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This was the theological position of the Letter of the Holy Office 194 9 which they all support. The error of the Letter was based on this philosophical reasoning.

2.So if someone says that this case of the catechumen is physically visible in 2016 and personally known to us then this would be false reasoning.? My answer is YES.

The cardinals and scholars over looked Vatican Council II(AG 7 and LG 14) making this same error.Vatican Council II mentions the case of the catechumen and places it along with orthodox text which says all need faith and baptism for salvation, the Church is necessary for salvation.

3.Would it violate the Principle of Non Contrradiction if someone said this case was visible in the present times, and was personally known?

My answer Yes.

So we have cardinals and scholars violating the Principle of Non Contradiction.Then they act as if all is normal.

The violate the Principle of Non Contradiction when they assume someone invisible is visible.They infer that someone who does not exist on earth actually exists and is known.Someone who is not concrete and tangible it is assumed to be defacto and real in present time and space and is an example of salvation without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.

4.Similarly this case of a catechumen in the past too would be hypothetical for the people of that time, since it cannot be physically visible and known in personal cases?

My answer is YES.

Yet some of the traditionalists assume that there is a St. Emerentiana in Heaven with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water.This is as if someone saw her physically in Heaven.Or it is as if the Church has made an official pronouncement that she went to Heaven without the baptism of water.It is made to appear that this was personally known to someone in the Catholic Church and so this announcement was made.

TWO QUESTIONS TRADITIONALISTS,SEDEVACANTISTS DO NOT ANSWER

1) Do we personally know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc,can we see them, are they physically visible to us in 2016 ?

My answer is that they we cannot see them. They are not physically visible and personally known in our time and space.

The cardinals, including the four mentioned here, will not answer or broach this question.

2) Since we do not know any of these cases, in real life, they are not visible for us, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or Ad Gentes 7 which states 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation? My answer is that they are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus . They were never exceptions in the first place. Rome made a mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.

However the new theology of the four cardinals and the 23 scholars is based upon this error and they do not want to talk about it or admit it.

The source of the present Arian-like heresy throughout the Church is due to the following points.

1.Rejecting the baptism of desire etc as being invisible and known only to God.

2.Assuming that the baptism of desire and being saved in in invincible ignorance refers to known cases in the present times.

3.In principle assuming hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire etc are objectively visible in the present times and then interpreting Vatican Council II with this irrationality.

4.Being unaware of this error of assuming the baptism of desire refers to invisible instead of visible cases was made in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 by the magisterium. It was then repeated in Vatican Council II by the Council Fathers.

Once this error is corrected, and it is simple to correct it, then this Arian-like heresy in the Catholic Church, a type of schism for Archbishop Athanasius Schneider, ends.

The error has to be identified and then Church documents, especially Vatican Council II, be re-interpreted.Invisible cases of LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc must be identified as being invisible only in 2016.The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 must not be considered explicit and objective cases in our time and space.

Ask these four questions and the entire philosophical and theological house of cards being supported by the contemporary magisterium comes down.

1.From the philosophical point of view a catechumen desires to receive the baptism of water but he dies before he can receive it.This is a hypothetical case for us?

My answer is YES.It is a hypothetical case.

It would be hypothetical for us and known only to God.

2.So if someone says that this case of the catechumen is physically visible in 2016 and personally known to us then this would be false reasoning.? My answer is YES.

3.Would it violate the Principle of Non Contrradiction if someone said this case was visible in the present times, and was personally known?

My answer Yes.

Since it is being assumed that something invisible is visible.It is being inferred that someone who does not exist is there on earth and known, someone who is not concrete and tangible it is assumed to be defacto and real in present time and space.

4.Similarly this case of a catechumen in the past too would be hypothetical for the people of that time, since it cannot be physically visible and known in personal cases?

My answer is YES.No could have physically seen this catechumen saved, in Heaven or on earth.

FINAL TWO QUESTIONS

So here are the final two questions which show that magisterium's bad theology is based on bad philosophy.

1) Do we personally know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc,can we see them, are they physically visible to us in 2016 ?

My answer is that they we cannot see them. They are not physically visible and personally known in our time and space.

2)Since we do not know any of these cases, in real life, they are not visible for us, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or Ad Gentes 7 which states 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation ? My answer is that they are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus . They were never exceptions in the first place. Rome made a mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. -Lionel Andrades__________________________________________October 3, 2016

Muller, Di Noia and Fellay made an objective mistake : hypothetical cases are assumed to be explicit

Their interpretation cannot be the teaching of the Holy Spirit.Since the Holy Spirit cannot teach an irrationality nor teach something new, which is a break with the old magisterium of the Catholic Church.